Old Footage Question

[oldrover]

Hi,

I'm hoping someone here can help with this. Here's the film

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/captivity/films/flv/film_2.htm

The film here can be divided into two parts, broadly speaking, there's the section with the darkened edges showing one tiger standing off from the other two (side view) and two facing the camera. The second portion shows three tigers milling about and being ushered into their sleeping quarters, this film seems to jump as the tigers seem to go in more than once.

the two segments were taken from opposite ends of the enclosure, and I do notice that the shadows in part I appear more defined than those in the second portion, what I'm asking is does the different quality of film, blurriness, darkening around the edges, suggest that these are two different films spliced together, or am I just imagining things?

I'd be grateful for any insights or comments that anyone could make, as this actually raises quite an important issue, and I know nothing about film.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Kingsize Wombat]

what I'm asking is does the different quality of film, blurriness, darkening around the edges, suggest that these are two different films spliced together, or am I just imagining things?

Could be two different films, sure. But to me it looks more like the first part of the film was shot from behind the guy with the broom, through an opening in the wooden enclosure. Hence you have the darkened, blurry edges.

Also, it would appear to have been shot from a dark place (indoors) into the bright outside. Cameras then did (and some still do) struggle with that set-up.

The second part then was filmed in the open sunlight, so the shadows are clearer and better defined.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

But what important issue does that raise?

 

[oldrover]

Could be two different films, sure. But to me it looks more like the first part of the film was shot from behind the guy with the broom, through an opening in the wooden enclosure. Hence you have the darkened, blurry edges.

Also, it would appear to have been shot from a dark place (indoors) into the bright outside. Cameras then did (and some still do) struggle with that set-up.

The second part then was filmed in the open sunlight, so the shadows are clearer and better defined.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

But what important issue does that raise?

Thank you, it's things like your observation about the dark/light effect on the film that I was hoping for, at least that tells me it's just as likely to be the same camera as not.

The first part was filmed apr 4 meters away from the second location, both in the open, the top of the tiger pen was covered only by chicken wire, but the first was immediately in front of a wooden wall, the second in a more open part of the enclosure. It's likely in the first part the cameraman would have been surrounded by zoo employers and it was very cramped in there, not more than five feet high, so perhaps that's the dark? Whereas in the second location at least one is standing off with his broom.

I'd be very surprised if it was two different films, but the first half has turned up in the middle of a film which can be dated to the end of 1928, or at least certain segments can, but not the second clearer 'better half'. Which makes me think the 1928 film may have been a composite, and also possibly that the 'tiger' film might be. Otherwise why would you use the grainy first part, and leave out the much more interesting and clearer second half?

In the second half, and this is the issue, there's a tiger which should have been dead by 1925. If this is the same animal, and I really think it is, then it lived on for a further four years. Which'd be big news and completely cock up a lot of dating work, as well as making it the second longest lived thylacine in captivity in Tasmania.

On the upside, I've got a particular personal interest in this animal and the man who caught it, and so that'd be great. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Kingsize Wombat]

It's likely in the first part the cameraman would have been surrounded by zoo employers and it was very cramped in there, not more than five feet high, so perhaps that's the dark?

That's entirely possible.

In the second half, and this is the issue, there's a tiger which should have been dead by 1925. If this is the same animal, and I really think it is, then it lived on for a further four years.

Ok, I see. Thing is, it will be very hard to draw anything totally conclusive from these snippets.

But good luck with it and keep us updated!

 

[EnolaGaia]

Even accounting for the difference in subject movement type (more active first; laid-back second) I get the impression the two segments were filmed at different frame speeds.

This doesn't necessarily mean they were filmed by different cameras or in different years.

At that time, movie cameras used spring-wound mechanisms that were tightened by hand. They could lose effective frame speed (i.e., slow) as the spring wound down. Slower filming speed gives the impression of faster / more jerky subject movement.

If my impression of different filming speeds is reasonable, it suggests the first (active) segment was filmed when the camera's spring had wound down, while the second (laconic) segment was filmed with a more- or fully-wound camera.

I'm not sure about the first shot being taken from an enclosed or hemmed-in position. That scene shows heavy vignetting (darkening around the periphery). This can be caused / aggravated by the camera being hemmed in or closely surrounded. However, it's also a common side effect of inadequate aperture in low-light situations. The camera is obviously in shadow in this scene. More modern lens tend to counteract this effect.

Either or both these differences could be construed to indicate there were two different films / filmings. On the other hand, they could easily have been mere side effects from two takes during the same filming.

 

[oldrover]

Even accounting for the difference in subject movement type (more active first; laid-back second) I get the impression the two segments were filmed at different frame speeds.

This doesn't necessarily mean they were filmed by different cameras or in different years.

At that time, movie cameras used spring-wound mechanisms that were tightened by hand. They could lose effective frame speed (i.e., slow) as the spring wound down. Slower filming speed gives the impression of faster / more jerky subject movement.

If my impression of different filming speeds is reasonable, it suggests the first (active) segment was filmed when the camera's spring had wound down, while the second (laconic) segment was filmed with a more- or fully-wound camera.

I'm not sure about the first shot being taken from an enclosed or hemmed-in position. That scene shows heavy vignetting (darkening around the periphery). This can be caused / aggravated by the camera being hemmed in or closely surrounded. However, it's also a common side effect of inadequate aperture in low-light situations. The camera is obviously in shadow in this scene. More modern lens tend to counteract this effect.

Either or both these differences could be construed to indicate there were two different films / filmings. On the other hand, they could easily have been mere side effects from two takes during the same filming.

Thanks, EmolaGaia.

My feelings are that this was probably all taken on the same day, or at least that's very likely. And does show who I think it does, I'm not persuaded yet that it dates from 1928 though. The thing that bothers me is that only the first part of the footage was included in the longer general film of the zoo. I can' understand that.

The darker segment was definitely not filmed undercover, but it was taken from a position immediately in front of a low (apr 5') wall.

Thanks both.

 

[oldrover]

For anyone interested this is the film of the zoo, at least some of which can' be before about late 1928.

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/captivity/zoos/Tasmania/Beaumaris.htm

 

[Kingsize Wombat]

The thing that bothers me is that only the first part of the footage was included in the longer general film of the zoo. I can't understand that.

That seems a bit baffling. But perhaps, on a large screen in a movie theatre, it wouldn't look as dark? And it would give the impression of a thylacine up close and personal.

Just a guess.

 

[oldrover]

That seems a bit baffling. But perhaps, on a large screen in a movie theatre, it wouldn't look as dark? And it would give the impression of a thylacine up close and personal.

Just a guess.

Possible, but what niggles me a bit is that the film shows a couple of birds splashing about, some blackbuck springing about, relatively mundane things, but only an abbreviated look at the curator's favourite, the thylacine. That only half the film was used is a concern of mine. Only way to answer this is to contact the archive it came from.